Latest Podcasts
November 17, 2017

052 — 17 Questions About Glyphosate

 iida-ruishalme-052

Talking Biotech #52 visits with Iida Ruishalme, cell biologist, author and blogger.  Iida is a trained scientist that writes the blog Thoughtscapism.  Recently she published a comprehensive assessment of the frequently-asked questions regarding the glyphosate herbicide.  Her thoughtful discussion was the basis of today’s discussion.  Follow Iida in all of her social media areas:

Blog:   thoughtscapism.com

Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/ 

Twitter:  Iida Ruishalme @Thoughtscapism, https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism

Pinterest:  https://www.pinterest.com/iidadragon/thoughtscapism/

Also, Chelsea Boonstra and The Boonstra Report.

Like the podcast?  Please subscribe and review!

 Stitcher    iTunes   Player FM   TuneIn

10 Comments on 052 — 17 Questions About Glyphosate

  1. We must not forget that the campaign’s purpose against glyphosate is not to eliminate glyphosate but to eliminate any advantage glyphosate tolerant GMO’s have over their non-gmo counterparts and to deny, of course, Monsanto any revenue stream. This campaign exists for the sole purpose of facilitating the banning and disuse of GMO’s.

  2. Soo.. I shared this thing on a politcal forum, where some people seem to have problems with glyphosate. First reply took off with an ad-hominem at Iida, and finished with a rant about how glyphosate would destroy soil biology… which was discussed in question 15 I believe, showing the guy didn’t even attempt to give it a try. There just seems to be no way to even get these people to look into the matter…

    • You are providing evidence that is not matching their beliefs. It is the well-described “backfire effect” and it is no surprise. Unless you are confirming their bias, they don’t want to hear it. That’s why approaching these folks with facts is not a good strategy.

    • I’m sorry for the bad reception you had. I’m afraid I can’t say it is very surprising, even if it always does feel astonishing and frustrating when someone responds by a personal attack, and without actually looking at the arguments. We can never hope to reach everyone with fact-based messages, but we can always hope that there may be those among the silent readers of the discussion who become interested enough to follow up on the scientific side of the argument. Thanks for opening it up for discussion on your forum!

  3. Another great podcast. I love how Kevin and his guests explain terms and ideas in ways that I can clearly understand.

    These podcasts are helping me get a handle on topics like Bt-corn, genetically engineered crops, glyphosate, etc.

    I come away from these podcasts more educated as well as better equipped to discuss the topics, as well as make informed decisions that affect me, my family, and my community.

    • Listeners should always consider the evidence and weigh claims carefully. There is no evidence linking glyphosate to autism other than tenuous associations and cherry-picked data.

    • I was going to post a reply along the lines of “who would listen to a computer scientist venturing way outside her field of expertise over those who are practicing within their fields of expertise.”

      Then I saw you are that computer scientist venturing way outside her field of expertise.

      • Yes, even on the Entropy articles they started listing disclaimers. But in the interest of a fair marketplace of ideas I’m glad to let Dr. Seneff post anytime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*